Saturday, September 30, 2006

Bridges TV

(All emphases by Always On Watch)

Item from the Saturday, September 30, 2006 edition of the Washington Post:
Muslim-Oriented TV Expands Into Six States

"Seeking to improve the image of Muslims in the United States, an English-language Muslim-oriented TV station has extended its availability into parts of Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Texas, Florida and New York.

"Bridges TV, which was founded by Mo Hassan, a Muslim, is now included in the basic lineup for users of Verizon's fiber-optic network in those six states, and it hopes to expand further...."

Muslim Cab Driver Refuses To Pick Up Blind Woman

A Muslim cab driver refuses to pick up a blind woman and her guide dogs. Why? Because Muslims think dogs are filthy animals:

A Muslim minicab driver refused to take a blind woman with her guide dog because of religious objections. In Islam, dogs are regarded as being “unclean” in the same way that pigs are. But his refusal has led to his being convicted under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Bernie Reddington, 37, was furious when London taxi driver Basir Miah refused to take her and her guide dog Orla in his private hire vehicle. Mrs Reddington, from Norwich, along with her son Christopher, 13, who is also blind, attended a hospital appointment at Great Ormond Street children’s hospital in London last November.

Taxi driver Basir Miah arrived in his cab to collect Mrs Reddington to take her to Liverpool Street station, but when he saw her guide dog, he said: “No dogs”. After ignoring Mrs Reddington’s insistence that his refusal to take the dog was illegal, Miah left the group with a hospital receptionist. This week, at London’s Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, he admitted refusing to carry out a booking made by a disabled person on the grounds that the disabled person was accompanied by her assistance dog. He was fined £150 and agreed to pay £250 compensation.


Abiogenesis, or "spontaneous generation," was accepted as scientific truth from the time of Aristotle up to the 17th Century. Wikipedia is all:

According to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, and so forth. Such was the prestige of the ancient Greek philosophers in general. In the 17th century such assumptions started to be questioned; such as that by Sir Thomas Browne in his Pseudodoxia Epidemica, subtitled Enquiries into Very many Received Tenets, and Commonly Presumed Truths, of 1646, an attack on false beliefs and "vulgar errors." The indignation which greeted Browne can be judged from the reaction of his contemporary, Alexander Ross: "To question this (i.e., spontaneous generation) is to question reason, sense and experience. If he doubts of this let him go to Egypt, and there he will find the fields swarming with mice, begot of the mud of Nylus, to the great calamity of the inhabitants."

Nevertheless, experimental scientists continued to roll back the frontiers within which the spontaneous generation of complex organisms could be observed. The first step was taken by the Italian Francesco Redi, who, in 1668, proved that no maggots appeared in meat when flies were prevented from laying eggs. From the seventeenth century onwards it was gradually shown that, at least in the case of all the higher and readily visible organisms, the previous sentiment regarding spontaneous generation was false. The alternative seemed to be omne vivum ex ovo: that every living thing came from a pre-existing living thing.

I remember that in my youth I was fascinated with the maggot experiment when I read about it in an encyclopedia.

James Joyner at TCS Daily discusses the NIE report on Iraq, which is being heralded by the media and the Democrats because it supposedly makes the claim that our involvement in Iraq is "creating more terrorists." This is used by the Dems and their media spokesmen to argue for surrender. He points out that the cicadas are chirping about only select passages, while ignoring others which suggest quite different conclusions, particularly the assessment that our surrender would be disastrous. This is true of course. But Joyner doesn't really identify what I think is the main flaw in the NIE thing, which I'm getting around towards blurting out if you stay with me for a moment.

Joyner looks at this bit of the NIE:

"Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq "jihad;" (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims—all of which jihadists exploit."

He concludes that three of these factors predated 9/11. As to Iraq, Joyner goes:

The invasion of Iraq simultaneously created a killing zone so that jihadists could be dealt with in a centralized location away from the United States (the so-called "Flypaper Strategy") and became a rallying cry that generated more terrorists. We've killed or captured hundreds upon hundreds of al Qaeda terrorists, including scores of their senior leaders around the world, yet they have thus far, unfortunately, responded in hydra-like fashion.

In this way, Joyner accepts -- or at least doesn't get around to rejecting -- one of the premises of the NIE: that our actions either "create" jihadis out of previously-normal and decent people, or cause them to remain normal and decent. I reject this premise. We should deem that people are either members of the jihad or not members of the jihad, even if they haven't come out of the closet yet.

Sometimes an event happens -- say for example, young people in Colorado dancing with each other, or Burger King printing an offensive ice cream lid, or the U.S. forcibly removing a mass murderer of hundreds of thousands of Muslims so that the Muslims may then choose their own leaders, or a woman wearing a bikini, or a British office worker putting a Piglet toy on her desk, or people watching a soccer match -- as a result of which, a Muslim might be inspired to join the jihad. I suggest that the proper way to look at such a situation is not that the event "caused" that person to "become" a jihadi; rather, we should look at this as a jihadi coming out of the closet, for whatever reason. Getting in touch with his inner-jihadi. Look, if a person becomes a jihadi because they were "provoked" by such innocuous and trivial things (and even more so, if they're "provoked" by something like the war in Iraq by which the West has made major sacrifices to bring the possibility of freedom to millions of Muslims in Iraq), then that person is not "lost" in any meaningful sense: they were lost to begin with. They are picking teams, their true colors are coming out.

Among other things, it's disgusting and immoral to put the blame for this person's shift-to-evil upon the perpetrator of the innocuous (or affirmatively-good) event. If we say that Burger King is at fault for "causing" some people to join the jihad, we're in moral no-man's-land, we've completely lost our bearings. The notion that there is a large group of Muslims out there who are "swing-jihadis," who could swing for civilization, or could swing for the jihad, and that we need to tempt them to our side, is absurd. The line between supporting murderous jihad and not supporting murderous jihad is not a fine line, it's a chasm. Anyone who could potentially become a jihadist is a lost cause from the get-go, and it's absurd to suggest we should be courting their goodwill. Such a person is the enemy already, even if they have not come out of the closet. Enough of this notion that our actions "create" jihadis. This is the same line of thinking that holds that Muslims are like element on the periodic table: a dash of this, a dash of that, and BOOM!, Muslim anger is sparked, it erupts, Muslim violence happens. No, people bear moral responsibility for their own actions.

So: Iraq is the flypaper, yes. But, every fly was once a maggot, and every maggot was once a fly egg, and every fly egg came from a fly, which was once a maggot, etc. Potential jihadis are not beautiful butterflies, they are maggots. Our actions will not create maggots out of butterflies, or butterflies out of maggots, any more than maggots will spring up spontaneously from meat.

So let me try and sum up my main problem with the NIE again. You take event X, in this case the Iraq war, and you can look at the data, and the data says, "ok, before event X there were so many jihadis, and after event X there are so many millions more." One conclusion you can draw from this is that event X "caused" these millions to "become" jihadis -- which puts the moral blame for their choice on the perpetrator of X. The other conclusion you could draw is that these millions became jihadis upon the occurence of event X through their own choices and/or their own preexisting evilness. Important: Which of these two moral outlooks is the correct one cannot be verifyed by data, it depends entirely on one's subjective moral view of the world. This is where the NIE goes wrong, presenting data through the lens of a particular moral outlook, which clearly is by no means the only one, and as I see it is the incorrect one. And, these people are experts in collecting data, they're not professors of moral philosophy. To say that the NIE shows the war is "creating" jihadis is no different from social science data showing a correlation between crime and poverty, and drawing the conclusion that poverty "causes" crime. No, it's data, and the moral judgment you draw from that data is your own.

Jihadists threaten a French professor

They do this by posting both online threats and maps to his house (via Hot Air).

The state education ministry blames the victim.

Le Figaro stands by the prof. (Fausta translated the original column, and Extreme Center translated the letter of defense.)

Update: oops, as Michelle Malkin explains, Le Figaro unfortunately apologized for publishing the op-ed.

Enemy Mine: Conservatives in Muslim Clothing?

One of the topics that I like to blog about how we create our own enemies. That has been true throughout history. The Left holds the belief that America brought upon itself the horrendous attacks of 9-11 and the necessity for the self-defense of the Islamist nations.

And they believe they are correct in accusing the United States and the emerging 21st century civilization of creating enemies around the world. They believe that for us to have peace we must learn to understand why they fear and hate us.

And they are correct – but for the wrong reasons.

The nation of Islam feels threatened by American culture and believes with all its heart that the society it sees is decadent, immoral, even depraved and corrupt and a threat to its very survival.

Case in Point.A recent ABC news article reports that Muslim women want western rights, but not western culture.

“A new Gallup survey — which conducted 1,000 face-to-face interviews in countries including Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey — found most Muslim women wanted the right to vote freely, to drive on their own, to work outside the home, and even to undertake leadership roles within their society. Though Muslim women acknowledged women had more rights in the West, the study found they didn't want their own societies to adopt Western values. The Gallup study concluded Muslim women tended to regard Western culture as morally corrupt and obsessed with sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll.

Dalia Mogahed, executive director of Gallup Muslim Studies, who conducted the survey, says Muslim women see a breakdown of traditional values in the West. "Sexual freedom portrayed in Western media is actually degrading to women, not a form of liberation."

Traditional values? Hmmm. Sound familiar? Isn’t that the mantra of the conservative?

America is a threat to the Islamic culture but it’s not the conservative, capitalist right that is to blame, but the Left itself. Look at what the left defends – their agenda. Pornography, Gangster Rap, TV and radios shows like Sex in the City, South Park, Family Guy (who claim in their show’s musical introduction to be a show about family values) and Howard Stern, nudity, sex and vulgar language in movies, homosexuality, lesbianism, freedom of speech and expression unrestrained by responsibility, and attacks on the Judeo-Christian religion, to name just a few.

The agenda of the Right – family values, anti-gay marriage, anti-single parenthood, celebration of religious holidays in public, and upholding the Judeo-Christian culture. Almost the direct opposite of what the Left holds – and interestingly enough – a lot of what Muslims believe – except for the Judeo-Christian culture part. Perhaps we should show more restraint in the expression of our freedoms and temper it with more responsibility.

In the emerging struggle facing us between a 21st century civilization and a dying 13th century one, we must understand the enemy we created.

4 Alaskan Villages Say "No" To Free Oil From Chavez

The big American FU to Hugo Chavez rolls on:

Leaders from four Western Alaska villages have rejected an offer of free heating oil from a Venezuelan- owned company because that nation's president this month called President Bush "a devil" and made other inflammatory comments about the United States.

"Despite the critical need for fuel in our region, the Unangan (Aleut) people are Americans first, and we cannot support the political agenda attached to this donation," read a statement from Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association released late Thursday.

Bucking for Dhimmitude

The Star Tribune:

When flight attendant Eva Buzek returned to Minneapolis from a trip to France, five taxi drivers refused to take her home from the airport. The reason? She had two bottles of wine in her suitcase -- and the drivers were Muslims, who don't drink and refuse to have alcohol in their taxis.

Later, we get this gem:

"It's become a significant customer-service issue," said Patrick Hogan, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Airports Commission, on Thursday.

Gee, ya think?

Now the airports commission has a solution: color-coding the lights on the taxi roofs to indicate whether a driver will accept a booze-toting fare.

What next?

  • Color-coding to indicate whether a driver will accept customers who have a bacon-laced sandwich? That's haraam, you know.
  • Color-coding to indicate whether a driver will accept female customers who're not "morally" dressed? Some of these whores women have minimal clothing. That's distressing for Muslims.
  • Color-coding to indicate whether a driver will accept Jews? Those bastards have been conspiring against Islam since 666 AD.
  • Color-coding to indicate whether a driver will accept infidels? They refuse to see The TruthTM. Screw 'em.

A flight attendant says:

"I came to this country and I didn't expect anybody to adjust to my needs," she said. "I don't want to impose my beliefs on anyone else. That's why I'm in this country, because of the freedom.

"What's going to be next? ... Do I have to cover my head?"

"Well, yes. In time." So says, Tim Blair.

The Big Pharaoh:

Now, I live in a Muslim dominated country, we have airports, cabbies, duty free shops that sell alcohol, yet such a thing never ever happened before.

You know you're in trouble when the land of the Muslim Brotherhood is less anal about alcohol than your place.

I don't know the reason behind this radicalization of some Muslims in the West. Does it have to do with the feeling that they consider themselves in an "alien environment" and so tend to hang on to their religion tighter resulting in stupid things like the example above? Or they might be afraid lest their faith gets weakened in "sin infested" America? And if they are afraid their faith or their devotion to their religion will get weaker, why the hell did they go to Minneapolis in the first place?

Good question.

Waiting For Moderate Muslims Is Like Waiting For Godot

In recent weeks, I have been making the same statement over and over ad nauseum. Here it is:

There is not a single Islamic political organization, media outlet, academic institution, or government, of any appreciable size, anywhere in the world, which is moderate.

Those who read me are probably getting sick of hearing it. Perhaps, wondering if I have lost my edge, my ability to come up with new ideas on a daily basis. Maybe I have, because I confess, I am definately stuck on this idea. It seems to me there is no greater outrage in this world than this one simple truth.

I wonder whether many readers believe me when I write this, so on occasion I challenge those who read me to come up with one example of a moderate Muslim organization. I have yet to have a single commenter even attempt to rise to the challenge. And, if any do, I am extremely confident that I will be able to prove, in short order, that the organization is not at all moderate.

And, if there are any who do not believe me (for it is an extreme statement to make, even if true), well then, here is a Muslim who is saying the same thing as I (from the Toronto Sun):

In a recent column, Michael Coren, my colleague here at the Sun, demanded Muslims apologize for wrongs too numerous to list.

Coren is right. I, as a Muslim, apologize without equivocation or reservation for the terrible crimes -- small and big -- committed by Muslims against non-Muslims and against Muslims, as in Darfur, who are weak and easy prey to those who hold power in the name of Islam.

I imagine, however, Coren is not seeking an apology from a person of Muslim faith such as I, who maintains no rank and cannot speak on behalf of the institutionalized world of Islam.

Like many others who share his frustration and legitimate anger, Coren is asking to hear a contrite voice from within institutionalized Islam -- to repent for Muslim misconduct, past and present, that is indefensible by any standard of civility and decency, and seek forgiveness.

But Coren and others might well wait indefinitely for such an apology from those representatives of institutionalized Islam convinced of their own righteousness, even as they are engineers of a civilization's wreckage and prosper in it by the art of bullying.

Oh, we will not wait indefinately. Of that, I can assure you. The problem for moderates who are Muslim is that we are getting sick of waiting. And the day that we become completely fed up will be a very sad day for all of humanity.

Who Killed Muslims?

Ma'ariv's senior journalist Ben-Dror Yemini published the first installment of a three part series about media representation of the Arab-Israeli conflict worldwide. The piece was entitled And the World is Silent. Gadi Taub reveals the obvious but hidden truth behind the blood libel here.

A central part of these attempts is the persistent myth about systematic "genocide" allegedly committed by Israel against Muslims in general and Palestinians in particular. Yemini did a simple thing: he collected the available numbers – they are staggering indeed – of Muslims murdered during the years of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Some 10,000,000 (ten million!) Muslims were murdered by the more conservative estimations. But only about 0.6% of these deaths were caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict itself. Read again: about half a percent. Here's one finding from the margins of Yemini's research: France is responsible for about ten times more Muslim deaths than Israel during the same years. Not something your average newspaper reader in Europe is likely to guess. Imshin, an Israeli blogger, has translated the whole piece, which you can now read in English here .

The numbers in a nutshell:

Israel is responsible for about 60,000 Muslim deaths (all its wars and the occupation included). The USA is responsible for about 70,000. France is responsible for about half a million (in the 1950s alone, by the most conservative estimate). Russia (along with the former Soviet Union) over one million. About 8.5 million Muslims were murdered by Muslim regimes, internal Arab civil wars, and Arab tribal ethnic cleansing.

The first thing that meets the eye when you read the piece, since that was the piece's intention, is the discrepancy between Israel's image in world public opinion, and the actual numbers. But the more profound result of reading this research is quite other. If Israel is responsible for some 60,000, how have the deaths of the other 10,000,000 been so effectively marginalized in public opinion? The numbers were never secret, after all. Yemini collected them from Human Rights Organizations, UN agencies, and the like. That those who have care fairly little about those who have not, we know. But that genocide on such a vast scale should slip under the radar and leave so small an impression is beyond pedestrian cynicism.

More over at Atlas Shrugs

An Islamic Roundup

Guest Editorial by Edward Cline:

While watching news coverage of the mammoth wildfires in California – caused largely, I suspect, by environmental prohibitions against the clear-cutting of old and inflammable trees and brush, a policy meant to prevent or minimize wildfires -- I was prompted to think of the wildfires set by Islam around the globe, and how they could very well converge on us to form an all-consuming firestorm, if the West does nothing to clear-cut states that sponsor terrorism and Islamic totalitarianism. I was also reminded of how much jihadists and environmental terrorists have in common, at least in terms of wanting to cause destruction and sacrifice themselves to accomplish it.

It was difficult this week to pick a subject on which to comment. The candidates are all so deserving of attention.

We will begin with the United Nations. President Bush, addressing it, back-pedaled from his incendiary reference the week before to terrorists as “Islamic fascists,” and instead employed the term “extremists.” That was bad enough, but he attempted to strike a note of empathy with Muslim populations in the Mideast, calling terrorists “extremists in your midst [who] spread propaganda claiming that the West is engaged in a war against Islam. This propaganda is false and its purpose is to confuse you and justify acts of terror. We respect Islam.”

That alone should earn him an award for muddled blinkerism. Yes, the West is engaged in a war against Islam, and, at last report, most Arabs in the Mideast are rooting for the terrorists. And, they neither respect nor fear the West. Don’t those morning intelligence briefings in the White House mention this?

Mr. Bush came into slightly clearer focus when he named Iran and Syria as the arsonists behind the Mideast conflagration, calling Syria a “tool of Iran.” But then he lost that slight clarity and, instead of calling Iran an enemy, said, after a meeting with French president Jacques Chirac, that the U.S. is willing to talk with Iran if only it would suspend its uranium enrichment program.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, at the same U.N. podium, excoriated the U.S. and promised that Islam would someday rule the world. President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who has formed a Satanic alliance with Ahmadinejad, at the same podium called Bush a devil and promised that the U.S. would be cut down to size. That relationship is reminiscent of the Soviet-Nazi pact over Poland and which other hapless European nations the dictatorships agreed not to go to blows over.

But the pearl for me was a portion of a speech by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who asked the U.N. to ban the “defamation of Islam.” Musharraf is a so-called ally in the “war on terror.” If terrorists employ force in the name of Islam to silence defamers of Islam – whether in scholarly inquiries, political cartoons, or in speeches to university audiences – shouldn’t the creed be defamed, loudly and frequently? When Mr. Bush heard that request, shouldn’t he have asked, “Pervez, my friend, what are you talking about?” But, he didn’t. If he had asked, Musharraf would probably have only replied with his charming chuckle, and changed the subject to golf.

Musharraf also pooh-poohed the idea that he has struck a deal with the Taliban and provided them a sanctuary in western Pakistan. It’s just a truce with tribal elders, he assured an ABC interviewer, failing to note that the elders are beholden to the Taliban.

Perhaps the only positive outcome of last week’s U.N. summit is that the 7/11 chain of convenience stores and gas stations in the U.S. has decided to drop Citgo as its gas supplier. Citgo is owned by PDV America, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela, the national oil company of Venezuela. The move was prompted by Chavez’s insults of Bush and of the U.S.

Daniel Pipes in his Weblog report of September 25th noted, as I did in my September 20th “The Janus Face of Islam,” the true colors of dissembling Dr. Muhammad Abdul Bari, head of the Muslim Council of Britain, and commented on Bari’s warning, threat, or promise – the reader may decide for himself which it was meant to be – that “if demonisation [of Muslims] continues, then Britain will have to deal with two million Muslim terrorists, 700,000 of them in London.”

Pipes doubts that this warning has any teeth. “I am inclined to give it poor prospects, as non-Muslims will likely reject the implicit threat….Moreover, were such a civil war actually come to pass, Muslims being a small minority could not realistically hope to win it.”

But, Britain needn’t have a civil war. Deferential multiculturalism and nihilistic egalitarianism have rotted Britain’s secular institutions to the core. Prime Minister Tony Blair, Prince Charles, George Galloway, and Mayor Ken Livingston of London, together with hoards of sensitized bureaucrats, school boards and police, have already conceded – nay, encouraged – submission to the anti-Western agenda of British Islam.

British non-Muslims haven’t much say in the direction of their country. They are also worried about the legislative emasculation and usurpation of British law and independence by the super-bureaucracy of the European Union, which seeks to absorb Britain into its own caliphate. But anyone who speaks out against either blatant threats of Muslim civil turmoil or the “immigrate, invest, ingratiate, and intimidate” tactic of the incremental conquest of Britain by Islam, is called Islamphobic, a racist loon, or a toady of the British National Party.

Here are two instances of why Muslims needn’t resort to an uprising against perceived “Islamophobia” and can reverse-assimilate Britain in a nearly bloodless coup. A “mega-mosque,” whose construction will be underwritten and funded by mostly Saudi petro-pounds, and which could hold between 40,000 and 70,000 worshipping Muslims, as well as schools, a hotel and other facilities, is planned to be built adjacent to the future site of the 2012 Olympics stadium in London. It would be the largest place of worship in Europe, dwarfing St. Paul’s just across town and every other cathedral on the Continent.

The aforementioned Dr. Bari sits on the Olympic planning committee. Officials are not certain that the mosque will be constructed. If it is approved, they are worried about resistance by all non-Muslim Britons, who may see it as a last straw of Islamic arrogance. Dr. Bari is sure to perceive such outrage as evidence of “Islamophobia.”

And, Britain’s National Health Service has patented the first burkah hospital gown for women, to debut on November 1st, complete with a headdress with eye slits and elastic cuffs to prevent immodest exposure of the arms.

On the Continent, in Brussels, the so-called “capital of Europe” (it is the headquarters of the European Union and European Parliament), Belgian Muslims celebrated Ramadan with consecutive nights of destructive rioting, burning and looting. In Berlin, Germany, Deutsche Oper Berlin announced cancellation of a production of Mozart’s “Idomeneo” for fear of precipitating Muslim rioting and demonstrations.

Produced in 2003, this highly adulterated, “updated” version of Mozart’s opera about Idomeneus, king of Crete and a hero of the Trojan War, features a scene (not written by Mozart) in which Idomeneus presents the severed heads of Poseidon, Jesus, Buddha and Mohammad in what director Hans Neuenfels claims is his protest against organized religion. He refused to remove the scene after Kirsten Harms, director of the German Opera Berlin, informed him that state security officials had warned of dangerous outbursts of Muslim anger. So the “protest” was squelched. Harm’s excuse was that, recalling the violence caused by the Danish cartoons of Mohammad earlier this year, she weighed “artistic freedom and freedom of a theater…against the question of security for people’s lives.”

Her decision ignited a controversy. German Muslim spokesmen hailed the action, and shed crocodile tears over the loss of artistic freedom. German officials and the press, however, were scandalized and called the action “crazy” and “unacceptable.” The mayor of Berlin stated, “Voluntary self-limitation gives those who fight against our values a confirmation in advance that we will not stand behind them.”

Also on the cultural front, Syrian television director Najdat Anzour, who earned death threats for having produced a television series on suicide bombers that was aired throughout the Mideast, is about to air another “provocative” series with dramatized episodes of terrorist attacks in Syria, Egypt, Morocco, England and Iraq. And the villains are all Muslims! But, wait, before applauding Anzour’s courage, readers should know that his purpose is to “defend Islam and to show that it’s the religion of tolerance and dialogue, not of violence.” Apparently Muslim characters in the series are outspokenly opposed to terrorism -- if it hurts them. Anzour blames the U.S. for the rise in terrorism for having invaded Iraq and for supporting Israel. “Terrorism,” he said, “is an American industry, 100 percent.” He sounds awfully like a Democrat.

Speaking of Democrats, former President Bill Clinton’s premeditated hissy-fit on Fox News, during which he defended himself against Republicans and “right-wingers” by blathering untruths about his pursuit of Osama bin Laden and hammering Chris Wallace’s knee with a finger, appears to have been the “go” signal to fellow Democrats to launch a full-scale assault of Bush’s Iraq policy. Not that it shouldn’t be assaulted – it is the wrong war and it is a mounting failure – but Democrats will accept any excuse just to “get” Bush and recapture Congress in the fall elections so they can proceed with their own failures.

To be sure, one or all of them will make as much hay as possible out of the recent revelation that former Secretary of State during the Vietnam War Henry Kissinger regularly consults Bush and has advised him to “stay the course” in Iraq. Perhaps Kissinger believes that while his policies failed to “democratize” Vietnam, they will work this time and “democratize” Iraq.

And you can bet that no Democrat (or Republican) will demand that Bush, Rice, or Rumsfeld answer this question: Isn’t having 140,000 troops in Iraq being beaten up by Iranian and other Mideast “foreign insurgents” as insane and costly a policy as having American troops, during World War Two, fighting the Nazis in France and Belgium but not allowing them to enter Germany? Are or are not Iran and Syria our chief enemies in that region? Why haven’t they been taken out? And why should American taxpayers be underwriting the rebuilding of Iraq, when recent events point to Iraq preferring to be in the Iranian sphere of politics?

But, no one should hold his breath waiting to hear those questions posed in the Senate and House. The Democrats are willing to resort to any tactic but asking for the truth. They are out to demolish Bush at any cost but a commitment to reason.

In their assault, they won’t be quoting Oriana Fallaci, the fiery Italian journalist who died earlier this month, who was to be tried in her home country for “blaspheming” Islam, and who, given a chance, would probably have given Bush a tongue-lashing in the Oval Office, calling him an “insipid, quavering Christian more afraid of Allah and Mohammad” than of his own God, “and to hell with Him, too.” She was an atheist and a proud infidel who has warned the West about the insidious, destructive encroachments of “the Borg” ever since 9/11.

Finally, while Britain is being absorbed by the whims and caprices of an envious European Union, American sovereignty and independence is being suborned by the Supreme Court (via its Hamden decision) and by Congressional deference to the Geneva Convention over the treatment of prisoners of war taken in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Notice I called them “prisoners of war,’ and not “detainees.” Prisoners of war have no rights, especially not prisoners who claim rights that they seek to destroy under Sharia law.

Could it get any worse? Yes. The Democrats will think of something.

Crossposted at The Dougout

Where Are The Moderate Muslims?

Brigitte Gabriel is a Lebanese Christian woman, now living in the United States, who has experienced first-hand the Jihad which is now beginning to sweep across the entire planet. Brigitte Gabriel is a hero for speaking out. Watch this video.

Venezuelan Oil Refinery Explodes In Cuba

Things that make you go, "Hmm ...":

Hot on the heels of the surprise power-packed U.S. consumer boycott of Venezuelan oil, a huge refinery explosion of Venezuelan oil occurred this morning in Havana, Cuba, where considerable Venezuelan oil is being refined. Gigantic. Val has a photo of the inferno, the latest oil blow to Hugo Chavez. The Real Cuba has more photos and details. Along with this, this, this, and this, just this past week. Even if oil prices rise as a result of all this, if Hugo can’t pump oil, he won’t get any of the extra cash.

These growing signs of wear and tear on Citgo and other Venezuelan oil pumping operations are a sign of major stress, owing to Chavez’s failure to invest in his oil industry, based on his firm belief that oil profits are not there to be invested but to be spent on pork barrel handouts. These repeated oil industry losses - those links show a pattern - may significantly affect Chavez’s ability to advance his communist ‘revolution’ and destroy the freedom of peoples with his meddling throughout our hemisphere.

Both ideologically and physically, Hugo Chavez may be running out of gas.

Hamid Mir to Speak at November Symposium on Terrorism

When? November 10-11, 2006
Where? Las Vegas, Nevada

Below is the press release from America's Truth Forum:

Hamid Mir, the only journalist to have interviewed Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahri since the attacks of September 11, 2001, will be the keynote speaker at a symposium addressing the origins and threat of terrorism presented by America’s Truth Forum, a grassroots, non-partisan, educational organization.

The symposium, titled, Understanding the Threat of Radical Islamist Terrorism, is scheduled to take place on November 11, 2006 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The symposium is open to the public. Tickets are $150 per attendee and require advanced purchase due to security protocol.

Mr. Mir, a journalist from Pakistan, founding editor of Daily Ausaf Islamabad and Bureau Chief of Islamabad for GEO-TV, is Osama bin Laden’s officially sanctioned biographer. Mr. Mir brings to the symposium first-hand knowledge, gained through his interviews with the world’s most wanted terrorist, of al Qaeda’s nuclear capability, an in-depth knowledge of al Qaeda and Taliban operations in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, evidence of Iranian support – both financial and strategic – for the Taliban and al Qaeda and an intimate knowledge of the ideology that fuels the mind of Osama bin Laden. Mr. Mir was recently captured and released by Hezbollah during the recent 34 day war between Lebanese Hezbollah and Israel.

Mr. Mir joins a panel of internationally recognized counterterrorism experts for day-long educational symposium.

America’s Truth Forum launches the symposium on Friday evening with a VIP Pre-Symposium Reception on November 10, 2006. Those in attendance will be provided the unique opportunity to personally interact with our speakers and other "prominent" guests. Tickets for the VIP Pre-Symposium Reception are $109.00 per attendee. Again, tickets need to be purchased in advance due to security protocol

For information and to purchase tickets: or email or call Jeffrey Epstein at (866) 709-3474.

Friday, September 29, 2006

Who Are You Rooting For?

For anyone who has trouble picking sides in the ongoing Middle East Conflict, let's step back from the conflict itself and look at some facts about the two sides. What do the two sides do with their relative resources? (From the Zionist Youngster):

Whatever wealth they have is the result of their good fortune (of having oil under their ground) and not of their efforts. Israel, poor in such natural resources, prospers by the brains and the sweat of its people ... This setting up of industry, science and culture by the Zionists predates the independence of Israel by decades, whereas the invented nation calling themselves “Palestinians” have been engaged in nothing but internecine warfare (of the violent kind), the setting up of terrorist training camps, and the maintenance of a poisonous education system ever since gaining land of their own in 1993.Such is the difference between Israel and its enemies ...

Yes, but let's look a bit more at the difference. In 2002, the United Nations Development Program released its report on development in the 22 states of the Arab World. Get a load of these statistics:

  • No Arab country spends more than 0.2 percent of its gross national product on scientific research, and most of that money goes toward salaries. By contrast, the United States spends more than 10 times that amount.
  • No more than 10,000 books were translated into Arabic over the entire past millennium, equivalent to the number translated into Spanish each year.
  • Only 370 industrial patents were issued to people in Arab countries between 1980 and 2000. In South Korea during that same period, 16,000 industrial patents were issued.

Is the answer, then, that Jews are smart, and Arabs are stupid?

Go read the rest at The Astute Bloggers.

Muslim Dating Tips (How To Deal With Rejection)

From Bordergal at Redneck's Revenge:

An investigation has revealed that the Muslim riots that destroyed 18 Christian churches, 20 homes owned by Christians and dozens of Christian shops in the Nigerian city of Dutse happened after a Christian girl rejected a Muslim boy's advances.

As WND reported earlier, the riots erupted after the boy accused the girl of "blasphemy" to the prophet Muhammad. Now word comes from Voice of the Martyrs that the investigation shows nearly 5,000 Christians were displaced and 40 Christian shops destroyed in the capital city of Jigawa state.

"After an Islamic young man made several unsuccessful advances on Jummai, a female Christian, he angrily reacted by calling her a fake Christian who follows a 'useless Jesus,'" the VOM report said. "Jummai responded by telling the boy he followed a 'useless prophet – Muhammad'," the report said. "Furious, the Muslim boy raised alarm through the town by proclaiming that a Christian lady blasphemed Muhammad.

She was quickly taken to the local police station where she was kept in custody to diffuse the potentially volatile situation." After several hours, the Muslim returned to the police station with a "militant band of friends" and incited them to attack police by alleging the woman wasn't being punished after her "insult" to Muhammad.

At least six Christians were injured in the resulting riots that destroyed churches, homes, vehicles and shops, officials said. The government ended up imposing a nighttime curfew and deploying soldiers in tanks and trucks to deter further mayhem, officials said.

Aderemi Ogunmola was treated for a slash on his head Voice of the Martyrs also said Aderemi Ogunmola was one of the Christians who was caught in the violence, and was captured by the Muslim militants to be beaten and slashed. They doused him with gasoline but he fled before he could be killed. Rioters also ransacked the Christ Apostolic Church and while Pastor Adeyinka was trying to flee in his car, they stopped him and burned his car as he escaped.

Voice of the Martyrs said it is mobilizing workers to help repair the damage at Calvary Life Church, Divine Life Church, Assemblies of God Church, Living Faith Church, Christ Apostolic Church, The Apostolic Church, Ecwa Clinic Church, Presbyterian Church, Anglican Cathedral, Celestial Church and others.

The Christian aid organization Barnabas Fund said the conflagration destroyed two-thirds of all Christian churches in the area, including St. Peter's Anglican Cathedral, and there were reports that the state's governor himself was attacked when he tried to calm the mob.

Go read the rest at Redneck's Revenge.

Storm Track Disinformation: Psst!? Hey, Buddy. Wanna Buy a Fatwa?

From The Gathering Storm

What’s this? Muslims turning against their own clerics? Can it be so?

Time Magazine reports:

Last week, many Muslims in India, like their counterparts around the world, gathered on the streets to burn effigies of the Pope and shout slogans denouncing him for his remarks on Islam and violence. Even before that fully died out, however, a new controversy erupted — one that has turned Muslim ire against some of their own local clerics. India's "cash-for-fatwas" scandal broke out last weekend when a TV channel broadcast a sting operation that showed several Indian Muslim clerics allegedly taking, or demanding, bribes in return for issuing fatwas, or religious edicts.

Oh, the horror! The horror!

The bribes, some of which were as low as $60, were offered by undercover reporters wearing hidden cameras over a period of six weeks. In return for the cash, the clerics appear to hand out fatwas on subjects requested by the reporters. Among the decrees issued by the fatwas: that Muslims are not allowed to use credit cards, double beds, or camera-equipped cell phones, and should not act in films, donate their organs, or teach their children English. One cleric issued a fatwa against watching TV; another issued a fatwa in support of watching TV.

Dueling Fatwas? Maybe a new reality show here for Fox.

Adding to the shock in India, home to the world's third-largest Muslim population (approximately 150 million), is that some of the clerics apparently caught in the sting operation teach at important institutions — one belongs to India's most famous Islamic seminary, the Darul Uloom at Deoband. At least two of the clerics have been suspended from their posts, but that hasn't satisfied everyone. Students at one madrassa in north India denounced the clerics, and in the city of Meerut, where a mufti, or cleric, had been caught on camera, the congregation at one mosque refused to offer prayers until he came before them, admitted to taking the money, and apologized.

Paging Tammy and Jim Baker! You’re needed in India.

The "cash-for-fatwas" scandal has also led to a renewed debate on what constitutes a fatwa, and who has legitimate authority to issue one. Fatwas — like the one passed by Iran's Ayatullah Khomeini in 1989 against the novelist Salman Rushdie, or those issued by Osama bin Laden in 1996 and 1998 against America — have come to epitomize the intolerance of Islamic fundamentalists. Yet many Muslims argue that the purpose of fatwas has been misunderstood: A fatwa is, technically speaking, a ruling on a point of Islamic law made by a recognized Muslim scholar in response to a question put to him.

Unless you pay him for what you want heard.

Since Osama bin Laden is no Islamic scholar, many deny his right to issue a fatwa. The sway that fatwas hold over Muslims is also not as great as many outsiders think.

Uh Huh. Tell that to the 3000 dead on 9-11.

India's Muslim leaders announced that they will soon create a new body that will monitor the passing of fatwas in the country, in a bid to preserve that influence, and nip the popular anger swirling around this scandal.

Paging the Muslim Pope. Anyone there?

UK TV: 'No Excuses For Terror'

British TV first?....a long overdue bit of thundering -prime time- realism on the issue of how elements of the left have jumped into bed with islamic terrorists.

Channel 5 'Dont Get Me Started', earlier this week (apologies if this has already been posted but its worth it...)

David Aaronovitch: No Excuses For Terror.

"Who is really responsible for the suicide bombers that target us? Is it the fault of George Bush or Tony Blair? Are we all somehow to blame? David Aaronovitch, journalist and commentator, has had enough of this argument. He asks how we've got to the point where British Socialists support Islamofascist Terrorism. Aaronovitch explains where the left have gone wrong on Israel, Palestine, the War in Iraq and the War on Terror".

Key soundbites: Elements of left wing are siding with fascists, their thought process is 'degenerate and ignorant'. ...Hitzbollah and its 'cause' represent an apologists 'indignant fantasy' ....and the apologists are the 'sewage of the fringes of the far right and far left..'.

I missed most of the Iraq war commentary to be honest. I picked up where they examined the recent Israeli Lebanon conflict. It is, however, now all now available on YouTube. In 4 parts.

In the section i saw it looked at skewed journalism ~ those who 'outright condemn' Israel for disproportionate use of force and a perceived 'dismissal' of civilian lives.... Israel it counters 'at least attempted to distinguish fighters from civilians' whilst Hitzbollah 'lobbed missiles from behind schools and hospitals'. Aaarnovich concludes, 'its the big bad zionists against good muslims theory'. On the recent pro Hitzbo rallies in Manchester and London he notes : 'They think Hitzbo', an 'anti semitic terrrorist outfit', are a 'sort of muslim freedom fighters sans frontieres'.

Full of terrific interviews, clips...getting across a view bloggers have been trying to hammer home for a while. Clips included Mayor Ken with his welcome mat out and of course George Galloway. There were some very poignant observations from an Iraqi Trade Unionist -Abdullah Musshin- and from Rev Julie Nicholson, the mother of a July 7 victim.

Worth watching.

Storm Track Infiltration: Malaysia's Secular Vision vs. 'Writing On the Wall'

From The Gathering Storm

“If the camel gets his nose into the tent, the whole body will follow.”Old Arab Proverb.

During the 1930s the Nazis perfected the tactic of infiltrating the nations they planned to conquer by sowing lies, confusion and political unrest. It worked perfectly as one European country after another, confused and disoriented by the propaganda and Fifth Column elements in the targeted nation’s media, schools and political organizations, fell easily and quickly into the hands of the Nazi war machine like the Low Countries and France, and some without a fight like Austria and Czechoslovakia.

Even in America, many feared the presence of a German Fifth Column before World War II. The most visible organization of infiltration was the German-American Bund. Groups like these wore uniforms and swastikas and pledged themselves to the Fuhrer promoting hatred for Jews and worked to bring Nazism to the United States. The German-American Bund even stormed the German language New Yorker Staats-Zeitung with the demand that Nazi-sympathetic articles be published. The Bund created recreational camps such as Camp Siegfried in New York and Camp Nordland in New Jersey. It also established Camp Hindenburg in Wisconsin and the group met frequently in Milwaukee and Chicago beer halls. The Bund created an American version of the Hitler Youth that educated children in the German language, German history and Nazi philosophy. The organization brashly promoted the same anti-Semitism of the Third Reich: it handed out Aryan pamphlets outside Jewish-owned establishments and by campaigned in the 1936 presidential election against Franklin Delano Roosevelt—who they charged was part of the Jewish-Bolshevik “conspiracy”. The Bund even spawned several incidents of violence against Jewish-Americans and Jewish-owned businesses.

The Nazis were genius at the art of exploiting the weakness of their intended targets. The Corvinius Library of Hungarian History writes that resistance to the Nazis infiltration tactics was weak through free Europe’s disunity and perplexed by the appeasement action of Western diplomacy. In addition, the free nation’s social ills and national strife were skillfully exploited by Nazi diplomacy and propaganda.

The spearheads of Nazi infiltration were the many large German minorities in those countries who readily embraced the ideas of national-socialism. In fact, Hitler's program appealed to many malcontents, irrespective of nationality, who were dissatisfied with the existing social or political order. The revisionist governments, of course, agreed with Hitler's loudly proclaimed aim of undoing "the injustices of the peace treaties." But the defenders of the status quo, too, in their confused and disorganized state, more and more deemed it opportune to curry the favor of the new and powerful German Reich. First, their inner weaknesses undermined their individual power of resistance. Second, their strife with each other destroyed whatever abilities they might have had for resistance through cooperation.

Does this picture look familiar? Substitute Nazi with Islamist and you can see what I mean. This relatively quiet part of the ‘clash of civilizations’ between the Muslim and non-Muslim world goes on for the most part, unopposed, veiled by the blindness of political correctness and multiculturalism.

You can see this infiltration process not only in America and even more so in Europe, but also in countries that were once considered models of moderate Islam.

Turkey has made it clear that creeping Islamicization will not be accepted and will use the military force, as it did since Ataturk, to stamp out any rise in the control of the country by Islamists. This of course gives grave concern to the EU who is considering admitting Turkey to that socialist organization. The EU is more concerned of how Turkey deals with the Islamist threat rather than the threat itself. The lesson learned from World War II by Europe was instead of learning that evil must be fought they learned that fighting is evil.

Along with Turkey, Malaysia has been looked upon as an example of a moderate Muslim state. But that is changing and the secular vision of Malaysia is being faced with the ‘writing on the wall’.

The Taipei Times wrote:

In practice, various religious and ethnic groups give Malaysia a distinctly multi-cultural character. But the Malaysian Constitution provides room for arguments on both sides of the question, and the relatively secular status quo is facing a serious challenge. Drafted by a group of experts in 1957, under the auspices of the country's former British rulers, the Constitution includes two seemingly contradictory clauses. On the one hand, Article 3 states that Islam is the religion of the federation, and that only Islam can be preached to Muslims. On the other hand, Article 11 guarantees freedom of religion for all. As a result, Malaysia has developed both a general civil code, which is applied universally, and Islamic law, which is applied only to Muslims in personal and family matters.

These contradictions are being exploited by a fundamentalist movement in Malaysia that wants to make it an Islamic state run under Sharia law. There little doubt this. From the International Herald Tribune: "Letter from Malaysia: Nation's secular vision vs. 'writing on the wall'."

The idea of a secular state is dead in Malaysia," says Farish Noor, a Malaysian scholar who specializes in politics and Islam. "An Islamic society is already on the cards. The question is what kind of Islamic society this will be." Those who want to maintain the country's secular roots are fighting what they call creeping Islamicization. Muslim women who at the time of independence often wore silky, tight-fitting outfits today do not leave the house without a head scarf, which is now also required for female police officers of all religions during official functions.

How Islamicized can Malaysia get?

Muslim prayers are piped into the loudspeakers of government offices in the new administrative capital, Putrajaya. And Islamic police officers routinely arrest unmarried couples for "close proximity." I see the writing on the wall," said Ivy Josiah, the director of the Women's Aid Organization, a group that lobbies the government on women's issues. "It's only a matter of time before Malaysia becomes another Taliban state."

The struggle between secular and sacred begins.

In recent years, a number of high- profile court cases have highlighted the clash between Muslim and secular laws, but none so much as the lawsuit brought by Lina Joy, a computer saleswoman, who is challenging the Malaysian government over its refusal to officially acknowledge her conversion from Islam to Christianity. After two lower courts ruled for the government, Joy awaits a judgment from the country's highest court. The case has aggravated already mistrustful relations between Muslim, Christian and Hindu communities. It has led to death threats against one prominent lawyer, large protest gatherings and a ban by the government on any further public debate. At the heart of the case is the fundamental question of which is supreme in Malaysia: Muslim law or the country's secular Constitution.

Malaysia’s hybrid system was seen as a better way to assimilate Muslim and Western traditions. The experience of Malaysia appears to show that there is no easy solution, even after five decades of trying.

So what is the prognostication for Malaysia? What do the people think? A recent poll may tell the tale.

The Muslim Identities Public Opinion Survey, Peninsular Malaysia is the first study on such a large scale that involves a credible sample size for a country the size of Malaysia. "Over 1,000 Muslims in a nation of our size and for just Peninsular Malaysia is a very credible sample," Martinez, who is associate professor at Universiti Malaya's Asia-Europe Institute, told the Sun. The survey produced mixed findings, some of which dismantle the generalizations and assumptions that have been made about Malaysian Muslims. For example, while 73% of those polled agreed that Malaysia is an Islamic state, 64% said the syariah should remain as it is under the Constitution and 77% did not want an Islamic state like Iran.

Another poll gave these results.

More than two-thirds of Indonesians favor the country's current secular system of law, according to a privately funded nationwide survey by the Indonesian Survey Circle, a pollster. If that seems like good news, read it this way: This means there are "only" about 82 million Indonesians who favor Shariah. Approximately 216 million out of Indonesia's approximately 246 million inhabitants, or nearly nine-tenths of the population, are Muslims. And while Indonesia's religious and cultural climate is justifiably regarded as moderate in comparison to much of the rest of the Muslim world -- and its government is a very useful ally against terrorism -- the numbers still leave plenty of room for concern.
Just over two-thirds of respondents disapprove of the death penalty for those who renounce Islam, according to the survey, which was first reported by Rupert Murdoch's More than three-quarters of Indonesians disapprove of mandatory head scarves. Nearly two-thirds oppose stoning for adultery. More than 75 percent are against severing the hands of thieves. When the aggregate numbers of people are factored in, the study looks considerably more disturbing. If one-quarter of Indonesians favor cutting off the hands of thieves, it suggests that upwards of 60 million Indonesians favor the practice. If roughly 164 million Indonesians oppose stoning adulterers, it means that more than 80 million favor doing so.

That's a very big camel's nose.

Like Indonesia, Malaysia is faced with a growing Islamist problem that adheres to this. Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said that There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim and US President George W. Bush is mistaken in casting his war on terror in terms of a "struggle for civilizations."

  • "There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim," he said. "We are fundamentalists in Malaysia. We follow the true teachings of the religion and the true teachings do not teach us to bomb and kill people without reason."

Yeah – “without reason”. Love those Islamist caveats.

and then ... Pakistan's Musharraf losing power to pro-Al Qaida officers

This story is 100% polar opposite to the one published in STRATFOR yesterday, whic claims we have a hot pursuit agreement n Waziristan - which I don't believe ..GERTZ AGAIN is the soruce

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf risks a collapse of his regime when he returns to Islamabad after his high-profile visit to the White House. Musharraf faces an Al Qaida-aligned intelligence and military that has decided to bolster Osama Bin Laden during the president's tour of the United States and other allies.

Western intelligence sources said Musharraf has already accepted the dictates of the jihad clique in Islamabad. They said the president was forced to accept a government decision to cede authority over North Waziristan, the mountainous tribal region along the Afghan border, to Al Qaida and Taliban.

The Pakistani decision marked Musharraf's surrender to the group of military officers that controls the nation's army and intelligence community.

Musharraf also looked on helplessly as Pakistan released more than 150 Al Qaida-aligned prisoners in a decision led by the Inter-Services Intelligence.

Continue reading "and then ... Pakistan's Musharraf losing power to pro-Al Qaida officers" »

Is anyone else nauseated yet?

What's wrong with this picture...

Carter: Bush has brought U.S. "international disgrace"

President Bush suggested Thursday that Democrats don't have the stomach to fight the war on terror, battling back in the election-season clamor over administration intelligence showing terrorism spreading.

"Five years after 9/11, the worst attack on the American homeland in our history, Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction and endless second-guessing," Bush said at a Republican fundraiser

The upcoming mid-term election is important because the U.S. is "in a deep hole, and Republicans don't want to quit digging," Sen. Hillary Clinton told a gathering of Democratic women in Washington, D.C., on Thursday.

Filmmaker Oliver Stone blasted President Bush Thursday, saying he has "set America back 10 years." Stone added that he is "ashamed for my country" over the war in Iraq and the U.S. policies in response to the attacks of Sept. 11.

The Bush administration is concealing the level of violence against U.S. troops in Iraq and the situation there is growing worse despite White House and Pentagon claims of progress, journalist Bob Woodward said in advance of a new book

To understand just how much the Democratic center has collapsed look no further than Maryland Congressman Steny Hoyer. Last September, Roll Call reported that Hoyer had cobbled together a dozen or so of his colleagues "to shape the Democratic strategy on national security issues and battle perceptions that the party is weak on defense." Hoyer also said that Democrats had lost the “national election because of national security” and because of a “lack of confidence of the American public.” A few months later, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (CA), a member of Hoyer's group and also onetime vice chair of the Democratic Leadership Council, co-sponsored legislation with Rep. John Conyers (MI) calling for the termination of the NSA's terrorist surveillance program -- a program Gen. Hayden said "has been successful in detecting and preventing attacks inside the United States." Tauscher dubbed the Bush administration's actions "despicable.”

Fast forward to yesterday’s House vote on the terrorist detainee legislation. Hoyer (along with Tauscher) was one of 160 Democrats who opposed the bill. Why? The bill "is really more about who we are as a people than it is about those who seek to harm us,” said Hoyer. “Defending America requires us to marshal the full range of our power: diplomatic and military, economic and moral. And when our moral standing is eroded, our international credibility is diminished as well." Actually, the bill, as Sen. McCain explained, keeps a critical wartime intelligence program going so we can disrupt al Qaeda operations to attack us.

Look, [the] ACLU and the New York Times don't like the agreement, but we think this will recognize, people will recognize that it defends both our values and our security. Some want the CIA not to be able to carry out this program. That was never our intent. And--but it was--it's very important that we have this tool to collect intelligence.

Democrats have now backed themselves into a corner with the ACLU and the New York Times. Republicans may want to note it.

(Hoyer is opposed for leadership of the house dems by JACK MURTHA)

Kennedy is worked up because the president trumped the stupid claims of a cherry picked NIE by releasing more of the NIE, so the Kennedy-freaks want to push for the entire NIE to be released, which of course the admin must refuse, so he can claim they are hiding the truth, and they will intimate the treasonous dems want exposed to help those who hate us.

Someone step on the brakes ... ONCE IN A WHILE

Continue reading "Is anyone else nauseated yet?" »

Someone is drastically wrong, or totally lying, and I want to know who

Bob Woodward has just published a book in which he claims....

the Bush administration has not told the truth regarding the level of violence, especially against U.S. troops, in Iraq. He also reveals key intelligence that predicts the insurgency will grow worse next year.

In Wallace’s interview with Woodward, to be broadcast on 60 Minutes this Sunday, Oct. 1, at 7 p.m. ET/PT, the reporter also claims that Henry Kissinger is among those advising Mr. Bush.

According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. "It’s getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That's more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces," says Woodward.

The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. "The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], 'Oh, no, things are going to get better,'" he tells Wallace. "Now there’s public, and then there’s private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know," says Woodward.

"The insurgents know what they are doing. They know the level of violence and how effective they are. Who doesn't know? The American public," Woodward tells Wallace.

Continue reading "Someone is drastically wrong, or totally lying, and I want to know who" »

That’s For Starters


I will tell you the tale of the mafioso and the car. A mafia don approached an average Joe and said to him, “Nice car you got there, it’d be a shame if something happened to it. Pay me a grand each month and it’ll be all OK”. Joe pays. However, a few days afterwards, he comes back home to see his car burned. After the trauma, he saves for buying another one, and finally he does. Then the mafia don comes back and says the same words he did last time.

What is Joe to do? In both instances, paying the protection money would be injustice. However, in the first instance, though it is injustice, it could be considered an act of wisdom—a result of pragmatic calculation of the cost vis-à-vis the value. In the second instance, in contrast, for Joe to pay the mafioso the money would not be even wise. For now that he had seen that paying the protection money had not kept his car safe, now that he had seen that the mafioso was not willing to hold to his side of the deal, Joe would have nothing to lose by refusing to pay and finding some way to fight the mafioso instead. Injustice can be barely tolerated by excusing it as pragmatism; but if there is no pragmatism in the miscarriage of justice, then the excuse of pragmatism should be thrown away, and justice be vehemently pursued, for there is now nothing to lose and everything to gain from that.

Joe is the Jews, and by extension the whole non-Muslim world. The mafioso is the “Palestinians”, and by extension the whole Muslim world. So far, the proverbial Joe has been paying protection money in the face of the plain fact that the proverbial mafioso has no intention of keeping his part of the deal—not permanently, anyway (pace Robert Spencer, Islamic law stipulates that a peace treaty with non-Muslims can last 10 years at most, and then it’s back to warfare). What, then, is the gain in continuing the concessions of land or culture to the Muslims? It is not only unjust (caving in to intimidation) but also unwise, because any concession merely postpones, not cancels, the enemy’s goal of full takeover. Your car will be burned down, in the end, no matter how much you pay, so it’s better, more pragmatic, to resist than to keep paying.


In full on Our Children Are The Guarantors »

Belgium Back To Normal, But ...

The rioting stopped last night in Brussels, as police cracked down, arresting the main culprits, apparently:

Last night Brussels police arrested 39 youths, including 15 minors, in the Marollen neigbourhood. The area had seen heavy rioting the previous nights. Some of the arrested immigrants were carrying combustibles. One schack was set alight and one car was torched. The police said there were no serious incidents. Yesterday afternoon Freddy Thielemans, the Mayor of Brussels, told journalists at a press conference that of the 45 youths arrested the previous night 31 were known to the police for a total of 242 crimes. The Mayor emphasized that the riots were the work of youth gangs and cannot be compared to last year’s riots in France since there had been no direct confrontations between the police and the rioters.

However, all is not well in Belgium if you consider the dhimmi attitude which pervades among many of its citizens:

Meanwhile, Belgian artists warn that a victory of the “islamophobic” Vlaams Belang [Flemish Interest] party in the local elections on October 8th may lead to violence. In an interview in the Dutch-language weekly Knack Magazine this week painter Luc Tuymans says: “In the worst case you will get organised resistance, perhaps even rather violent reactions. I suspect many shop keepers will have their windows smashed. People do not seem to be aware, but a vote for the Vlaams Belang may have serious consequences. They should realize this before they take a final decision in the voting booth.”

Vlaams Belang is, admittedly, a political party with a history of racism. It is, in fact, a mutation of the Vlaams Blok party which was officially banned by the Belgian government in 2004. The current Vlaams Belang party does not represent itself as racist, but is, instead, anti-immigrant. Such a sensibility is popular these days considering the violence and streetcrime which has blossomed in the major cities, and considering the fact that Belgium was host to Muslim rioting last year, and now again this year.

But, the dhimmi "artists" and politicians refuse to deal with the will of the people. Instead, they make the will of the people illegal. Let me be clear, I am not for Vlaams Belang. I would caution Europeans against voting for such parties. But, at the same time, the reason these parties are now receiving more votes in places such as France, Belgium, Germany, the UK, and Sweden, is precisely because the people can not find their will represented in any of the other major political parties.

Now, get a load of this next paragraph:

Tuymans is one the artists supporting the free 0110 concerts against the Vlaams Belang. The concerts are subsidized by the Belgian national lottery and are broadcasted on public radio and television. Another artist supporting 0110 is rock singer Arno, who said this week that Brussels is an example for the future of Europe, since it is “one of the only Arab cities which is not in a state of war.”

Well, so much for that fantasy.

One time, in band camp.....


Iraq terror leader recruits scientists

In a new audio message Thursday, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq called for explosives experts and nuclear scientists to join his group's holy war against the West. He also said that more than 4,000 foreign insurgent fighters have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003

And let's not forget Nobel level pulmonary specialists, and neurosurgeons.

Reserve your virgins today

Senate approves new tortures for the meek and mild


The Senate on Thursday endorsed President Bush's plans to prosecute and interrogate terror suspects, all but sealing congressional approval for legislation that Republicans intend to use on the campaign trail to assert their toughness on terrorism.

The 65-34 vote means the bill could reach the president's desk by week's end. The House passed nearly identical legislation on Wednesday and was expected to approve the Senate bill on Friday, sending it on to the White House.

The bill would create military commissions to prosecute terrorism suspects. It also would prohibit some of the worst abuses of detainees like mutilation and rape, but grant the president leeway to decide which other interrogation techniques are permissible.

Do we actually need a law to prevent americans from mutilating prisoners? Even heinous cretins?

Continue reading "Senate approves new tortures for the meek and mild" »

And just when it looks safe to go back in to the water

We find the liberals, excuse me Ghost of HHH, I mean progressives (for instance George Lakoff) claiming it's the misery of a poor and hopelss economic existance, coupled with repressive western supported (sometimes true) governments maintained for stability. (Sorry Mr, Atta and the other 18, I guess that lets you out)

We find the relgious right claiming it is becuase of evil book, consumed with the poetry of the sword, and it's base being as Muhammad put it, all war being deceit

We find the neocons worried it is because of arrogant relgious superiority, and the presupposition that the dominant strain and only voice says if you run about making up laws otu of your own head then you cannot be following god's (i.e. Sharia via the immutable word of God , the Quran)

So comes the US Army, who without a clue wants an institutional answer..and thanks to Dr. Bostom we get it here:

Continue reading "And just when it looks safe to go back in to the water" »

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Civilization vs. Tribalism

M. Simon:

The war against Islamofascism is not the first time we in America have faced enemies who loved death more than life. Honor more than victory. We have faced such enemies every time we have faced one of the oldest human cultures on earth. Tribalism.

The problem today is that the age-old tribalism appears under the cloak of a religion. (Go ahead, guess which one.)

The Prophet Muhammed is the embodiment of all that is wrong with Islam. Unfortunately, the Muslims consider him to be an infallible human. Nothing he said or did could be wrong.

Imagine if someone were to pick a person who lived, let's say, 100-200 years ago. Now suppose he was called absolutely perfect by X number of people. Would that fact alter the morality of the dead guy?

It shouldn't.

Think of the prevalent outlook between 1806 and 1906. Racialist views are the norm; slavery is accepted in most of the world; non-whites and women are treated as inferior in the West and on and on.

We would simply laugh at anyone who claimed that a person who lived in that time held the most clear moral view for all of humanity till the end of time.

Yet, Muslims think that Muhammed who lived 1400 years ago is the guy to forever emulate. Muhammed:

The West ought to be rhetorically whipping Muhammed. The cartoons of that vicious clown* were quite mild to be honest.

* I mean no disrespect towards professional clowns.

This is no way to win a war! Weakness, cowardice, and damn lies from the leader of the free world!

"I send greetings to the many Muslims observing Ramadan in America and around the world.

Ramadan is the holiest time of the Muslim year and an important holiday when Muslims take time for prayer, fasting, and personal sacrifice. According to Islamic teachings, this month represents when God delivered His word to the prophet Muhammad in the form of the Qur'an. Ramadan is also an opportunity to gather with friends and family and show thanks for God's blessings through works of charity.

Ramadan and the upcoming holiday seasons are a good time to remember the common values that bind us together. Our society is enriched by our Muslim citizens whose commitment to faith reminds us of the gift of religious freedom in our country.

Laura and I send our best wishes for a blessed Ramadan. Ramadan Mubarak."
Surely, I cannot be the only one sickened by these goodwill wishes to the Muslim Ummah in the US and throughout the world? Not only do I find this message sickening, but also I find it weak and cowardly! It is also offensive, because such goodwill messages are never reciprocated. Has the West already become the slave of the Islamic world?

With each passing day, President George W Bush shows himself to be weak and growing ever weaker; indeed, in my opinion, he is too weak to be the leader of the free world at this critical time. After 9/11, he gave the impression that he was going to be the political ‘saviour’ of the free and democratic West, for he talked tough. But as the years have passed, we have seen that he has grown weaker rather than stronger.

Can you imagine Churchill issuing such a statement of goodwill to the Nazis during the Second World War? Imagine it! It would have been unthinkable! Winston Churchill was strong, and he had principle. He was no pussycat. He fought the Second World War with one thing in mind: Victory!
“I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this government: I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.

We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realized …
(To listen to the speech in all its glory, click HERE)
This, Mr Bush, is the way to win wars! Not by sending wishes of goodwill to our enemy!

Doesn’t the President of the United States of America realize that the West is engaged in a war to the death? Doesn’t he realize that such messages of goodwill, especially when they are never reciprocated, will do nothing but appease and embolden the enemy? Doesn’t he realize the nature of the enemy he is dealing with? Doesn’t he realize that Muslims, and Arabs in particular, view such gestures of goodwill as a sign of great weakness? Doesn’t he realize that the war cannot be won this way?

Click here to listen to how Churchill might have reacted:

This was their finest hour

To start with, let him tell us how “our society is enriched by our Muslim citizens whose commitment to faith reminds us of the gift of religious freedom in our country”. What the hell is he talking about? How do these people enrich our society? As far as I can see, all they do is impoverish it! Only in the past days, it has come to light that an opera, Mozart’s Idomeneo, has been cancelled in Berlin because it might offend Muslims. Two weeks ago, Pope Benedict XVI came under fire for his quotation of the emperor Palaeologos. Earlier in the year, we saw the furore caused by Muslims throughout the world when a few measly cartoons were published in Denmark. And you, Mr President, have got the unmitigated gall to say that Muslims enrich life here in the West. This is a lie. A damn lie, too! They do nothing but impoverish it! And the longer they stay in the West, and the stronger they become, the more impoverished life will be for us all. Moreover, how the hell do you think that Muslims living in the West can possibly remind us of the gift of religious freedom in the US? Of all people, Muslims do not understand the concept of religious freedom. In Muslim countries, people are put to death for converting out of the faith of Islam. Where’s the commitment to religious freedom in that? Don’t you realize that in each and every country that Islam has ever entered, and where it has been allowed to put down roots, that it has eventually taken over, and snuffed out all vestiges of freedom. Look at the evidence: Egypt, Libya, the Lebanon, Syria - these were all once Christian countries! The ultimate aim of all Muslims, Mr President, is not democracy and freedom, but theocracy and totalitarianism.

From what I can see, these goodwill wishes are an exercise in A-licking! Brown-nosing! Call it what you will! With such utterances, you show the Muslim world, and the rest of us, just how weak you are! Weak and craven and cowardly!

You seem to believe with your sophistry that you will somehow be able to change the nature of Muslims and Islam. You seem to believe that you will tame the lion by calling the lion 'a good boy'. You won’t. Be sure of that! The roaring lion that is Islam has never been tamed, and nor will it ever be. This lion can only be slain!

You, Mr President, made a fatal error of judgment the day after 9/11. Probably out of cowardice, you failed to identify the enemy to the citizens of the USA and the world. You had your chance, and you blew it. You should have stated that while, hitherto, America had not been at war with Islam, it is clear now that Islam is at war with your country. That, Mr President, was your first grave error. You should then have asked the citizens of your fine nation for their co-operation and unity. You should have stated that in order to win this war being waged against your country, you would need everyone to pull all the stops out, and to be prepared to sacrifice for the cause of eventual victory.

Further, you should have drawn together all sides in Congress, the right, the centre, and the left, in order to build a government of national unity. In time war, there is no room for divisions between left and right. War is the time when the people need to put aside their political differences in the cause of the war effort.

Furthermore, the people should have been asked to tighten their belts, and war bonds should have been issued to help finance the war ahead. No war was ever won without the sacrifice of the people. This sacrifice also includes the sacrifice of rights such as the right to sue others because of criticism. All those things, manifestations of life in a free and peaceful world, should have been suspended for the duration of the war.

During World War II, Japanese people living in the US at that time were interned. Likewise, Muslim people living in the US post-9/11 should have also been interned. You cannot wage a war with a fifth column spread across the nation. It is just not possible. You, Mr President, might say that it is not just to punish the majority for the sins of the extreme minority. I would say to you, Mr President, that it is always the case in this life that the majority has to pay for the sins of the minority. This is the nature of life, as unfair as it may be.

Because of the way you have tried to wage this war, because you have tried to wage this war on the defensive, Islam in the West has actually gained in strength since the attack on 9/11. Now the average person in the street doesn’t know what to believe. Their leaders are stating that Islam is really a “religion of peace” which has been “distorted” by the likes of the members of Al-Qaeda which, of course, is balderdash; and yet the news, despite the concealing distemper painted on it by the MSM, shows them that Islam is belligerent and malign, and that it is growing apace here in the West. Naturally, this disturbs many, many people.

All this has come about because you, Mr President, and your incompetent administration, have refused to look truth in the face. This is no way to wage a war, Mr President. This is no way to win this war, Mr President. This is no way to victory, Mr President! You are engaged in mendacity, prevarication, and sophistry. Historians will not be kind to you for enabling the enemy to take away our freedom and democracy. Shame on you!

©Mark Alexander*

*All rights reserved

Unveiling Saudi Arabia

Recommended reading: Observations on Arabs.

My eyes lit up upon reading this sentence:

I went to live and work in Saudi Arabia in 1998, and I "made my year" as expats there put it.

Whoa! A blogger who hasn't simply read about Arabia but actually lived myself! His observations are spot on:

The basic forms of work: making stuff, growing stuff and moving stuff around, is taken care of by a class of indentured servants, usually non-Arab Muslims from the Third World, and even today, by outright slaves.

I wrote on Nov. 21, 2005:

Non-Saudis were employed to maintain the apartment buildings where we lived. They would keep watch over the entrance, wash a car for 10 riyals (US$2.66) in the suffocating heat, bring drinking water to many apartments, and clean the floors. I don't think they spent less than 12 hours a day on hard labor.

[...] Yet, the Saudis treated them with contempt. The Saudis would rather bark at them than speak to them like civilized men. The squalid workers would never utter a word in protest because they knew that in Saudi Arabia it doesn't take much to deport a foreign worker.

From the excellent post:

“Of conjugal love they know nothing.” (Thomas Jefferson on the French aristocracy.) In a land of arranged marriages, where the whole society is geared towards a strict segregation of the sexes and women are at least semi-chattels, romantic love is rare – and greatly desired.

I wrote a (fake but accurate) story on June 10, 2005:

Silver lines were appearing in Faaizah’s hair. She had kept Saleem’s foul secret. Both their parents were happy with Saleem and Faaizah. No one, not even her mother, knew how Faaizah felt. She had all the material wealth she could desire. Yet, she would never know the warm touch and love of a mate. Her last years would pass by with a growing melancholy.

Again, from the excellent post:

A Palestinian friend of mine explained to me that even the weather forecaster will qualify his prediction, “It will rain tomorrow. Inshallah.” Or, “I will meet you tomorrow, inshallah.” (But God understands that I am a very unreliable person.)

I remember giving a pep talk to my students before a crucial exam, “You are all going to pass the exam, right?” “Inshallah teacher.” “No, no!” I shouted, “No inshallah. Study!”

I wrote on August 11, 2006:

Often, Muslims use this in a context where they don't want to offer a helping hand.

For example, say you are moving to a new place in two days. You ask
a Muslim friend for help. He replies, "Yeah, I'll be there...Inshallah."

Damn it! He didn't show up. Allah didn't will it!

Inshallah has basically become code for you're screwed.

Okay, I'll stop with the excerpts. Go read the entire post by Stephen Browne. It conveys more information about Saudi Arabia than a hundred sugar-coated articles from the MSM.

(Click here to see all my 'Saudi Arabia' posts.)